Together they facilitate “direct update and enrolment” where the AEC can put people on the roll, or change their address details, without the need for the elector to fill in a form.

In my university garb I’ve long pushed for this reform. I’m a fan. I’ve bored readers silly on this before, and won’t do it again; earlier posts can be found here.

Instead, this is a numbery post on proportions of unenrolled by age.

There’s been a bit of loose talk about the effect of this legislation in terms of electoral outcomes, particularly regarding young people, who tend on average to vote more left-of-centre than the rest and are disproportionately not on the roll.

Statistically, the younger the age the less likely a person is to be enrolled. But it is not true to say that “most” people not on the electoral roll are, say, in the 18–24 agegroup, which is how it is sometimes reported.

The latest national enrolment numbers can be found at this AEC page, the total at the bottom of the table:

I’ve put this info here (I’ve extracted 16–17 year olds, provisionally enrolled, which accounts for a different total on the right hand side) and added a per cent column.

Definitely click for larger popup.
So 18-19 year olds are 2.0 per cent of all enrolled voters, 20–24 are 8.0 per cent, and so on. The biggest proportion is in the 70+ age group, 14.2 per cent.

Below the per cent column is a cumulative per cent column, which gives us a number for all enrolled in that age group or below. We hit the half-way mark somewhere in the 45–49 group; we don’t know precisely where, but we can say that 52.8 per cent (more than half) of enrolled people are aged 49 or under.

Now I bring in data from another AEC document. Table A2 on page 10 of this submission to the joint standing committee on electoral matters earlier this year has estimated proportions of enrolled people by age-group.

We can see that the largest non-enrolment group is indeed the youngest, 18–19, at 47 per cent. But not many Australians are aged 18 and 19. The proportion enrolled gradually increases the higher the age-group goes, until it drops a little in the 70+ group.
Using these numbers, and those from the first table, we can calculate the extra columns. First, the total estimated eligible population, then its percentage of the total, then the cumulative percentage.

Now we hit the half-way mark in the 30–34 group. So while we can’t say “most” unenrolled people are 18–19, we can say they’re under 35.

A while ago I wrote about a very misleading ABC 730 segment, and Drum piece, that claimed “missing electors” would vote 60 40 in the ALP’s favour after preferences.

It makes more sense to talk about it relative to the vote of the rest of the country. The overall result happened to be 50-50 in 2010, so when people claim the unenrolled would vote 60 40 they presumably mean there would be a 10 per cent advantage for Labor compared with the overall result. But if country as a whole voted, say, 46 54, then that other group would presumably vote 56 44.

In any event, that 60 40 number is nonsense. If it means a 10 per cent advantage for Labor I’m willing to accept it applies to the 18–19 year olds, but not the older groups. Yes, unenrolled 18–19 year olds account for 17.0 per cent of all estimated unenrolled, but people 50 and over, who skew to the Coalition, account for even more, 18.5 per cent of them.

(As about a tenth of the electoral roll is missing, an advantage of 10 per cent among the unenrolled would translate, if included, to about a 1 per cent addition to Labor’s overall two-party-preferred vote.)

So what might the overall electoral effect be? Newspoll has voting intentions by age-group in its quarterlies. The most recent is here.

But their categories are broad: 18–34, 35–49 and 50+. I had a bit of a play with the numbers and got a very rough additional 0.2 per cent two-party-preferred on top of the ALP’s favour if they are all included—with plenty of provisos, for example this assumes all unenrolled people will be put on the roll and then turn out to vote (formal), which is unrealistic.

On the other hand, it is likely that even allowing for age, unenrolled people would likely skew left-of-centre.

But I’m going to try to get more detailed numbers from Newspoll. So be prepared for another post on this.

(There is another variable with these numbers, which I haven’t quite got a grip on. It’s Australians living overseas. They would be in the first table. But how are they accounted for in the second one? Will try to find this out.)

Update: see Antony Green on the growing divide, thanks to direct enrolment (aka “Smartroll") in NSW, between that state’s roll and its portion of the Commonwealth one.

Your Comments

The proportion of people who do not vote who are less than 25 and if forced to vote would put in a donkey ballot would be substantial.

Are you taking that into account? Did the piece in the Drum?

Peter BrentThu 15 Nov 12 (11:53am)

Do you mean donkey vote or informal vote? Anyway, the answer is ‘no’.

SteveThu 15 Nov 12 (12:30pm)

If people - of any age - cannot be bothered to register to vote or to keep their electoral roll details up to date, then they only have themselves to blame when they turn up to a polling booth and cannot vote.

energy_quantThu 15 Nov 12 (12:36pm)

Hi Peter - could you please do a parallel article on the aging of the electorate? If the underlying assumption is that older age groups are “right-leaning”, what is the likely effect on the 2pp as the age distribution skews? I can see a joint Peter Brent / Bernard Salt article in our future....

If you want to get all worked up about electoral rolls, why don’t you express concern about all those people fraudulently enrolled to vote? In Queensland, electoral fraud lead to the resignation of the then Deputy Premier (Labor, of course) and a sitting Labor MP who was a former ALP State Secretary. People should have gone to jail over this, except some convenient changes had previously been made to the electoral laws in Queensland. (Like to guess which political party made the changes?). Then Premier Beattie huffed and puffed about how he would not allow crooked people to remain in his beloved party. And then nothing happened. Why don’t you demonstrate your allegedly long standing concern about electoral matters by calling for a cleansing of the electoral rolls, and mandatory voter identification? Apparently all the US States with mandatory voter ID requirements were lost by Obama. Shouldn’t that be telling us something about the state of electoral rolls generally?

Peter BrentThu 15 Nov 12 (12:48pm)

In Queensland the fraud was about people fraudulently enrolling for internal party matters. It had nothing to do with a general election. At least one person did go to jail. The roll is cleansed all the time. When the AEC finds someone isn’t correctly enrolled they kick them off. Your last two sentences are a fantasy.

IanThu 15 Nov 12 (12:49pm)

Steve Dunera What evidence is there that “ a substantial number” of the under 25s would put in a donkey vote? How could you possibly know, not surmise but know, that? Is it 10% or 33% or 57%. or what? How could this unguessable number possibly be factored into the statistics?

BilboThu 15 Nov 12 (01:29pm)

The reason these laws are good is that they address a reality, which is that young people, whatever their political preference, tend to be very mobile and move around a lot. Because elections are not as regular an occurrence as, say, your telephone bill, it is natural that some people forget about their status on the electoral role. Sometimes I feel all these righteous sentiments about ‘if people don’t bother to enrol than they shouldn’t vote’ come from people who would be quite happy to limit many civil liberties. Protecting the franchise of citizens is something that we should all have an interest in as a democracy.

Steve DuneraThu 15 Nov 12 (01:31pm)

@Ian

The first bit of evidence is that a substantial number of under 25s avoid registering, in a way the ultimate form of donkey or informal vote. I did exactly this and knew quite a few people at Uni who did the same.

Who would blame a 19 year old for avoid voting for who they hated least right now?

You could also hazard a guess at uncommitted voters in the 18-25 year old age group.

Peter BrentThu 15 Nov 12 (01:59pm)

“Donkey voting” is actually the sequential numbering of boxes starting with ‘1’ at the top. It’s not informal voting.

BobbyThu 15 Nov 12 (01:36pm)

Of the 37 years I have stood outside polling booths on election day I cannot recall one complaint by a young person that their name was not on the electoral role. If they haven’t filled in the form they probably won’t go to vote and may only go at the following election after they have received a please explain letter from the Electoral Commissioner.
The proposition that there should be names on the electoral role to which the elector has expressly consented (whether or not by complusion of law) is dangerous. It creates a greater number of people whose names will not be crossed off at at least one polling booth in an electorate.
No party trusts the other as far as voting fraud is concerned and whether or not it goes on is difficult to identify. If I recall correctly, there was a real flavour of an attempt at it in one marginal Victorian seat at the 2007 federal election when a stack of absentee votes were received from a particular nearby safe electorate. Shall the cemetry vote will be out in force at the next election? Does the cry go out: ‘vote early, vote often’?

LogicalThu 15 Nov 12 (01:41pm)

Automatic enrollment is not far from automatic voting. What’s to stop someone voting for a person who doesn’t even know they have been enrolled? There is no proof of identity required of any voter on the day.

HolcatThu 15 Nov 12 (01:56pm)

Would the repeal of laws requiring attendance at polling booths on election day favour a particular party?

Peter BrentThu 15 Nov 12 (01:59pm)

I think that’s unpredictable.

class WAR!Thu 15 Nov 12 (02:16pm)

“Your last two sentences are a fantasy”. was a response to Angry Old Grey at 12:40. Not quite fantasy Peter. 4 states have strict photo ID requirements to vote. All went GOP, so not fantasy, but reality. 7 other states have a photo requirement as well (bring photo ID in later etc). 3 went GOP. So 7 of 11 requiring a photo went GOP. By contrast, of the 21 states requireing no ID at all, only 5 went GOP. Hardly conclusive.....but interesting in terms of opportunity for voter fraud v different outcomes.

Point being is that if you want to win a state for the Democrats, dont have any form of photo ID checking of the voters. Whats that old Labor slogan....? “Vote early, vote often”.

Perhaps the US system hasnt got it all wrong in comaparison to our rules.

“Ohio, won by Obama”..... A state that needs no photo ID at all? Where a gas bill or a pay slip are deemed sufficient forms of ID. What your point? Are you trying to say that those states (like Ohio) are more likely to be victim of voter fraud?

Of course Labor want the young to vote as the majority of them vote for Labor as they haven’t had to work yet let lone pay taxes or realise how much of their hard earned is going to wasteful ALP policies. This idea of enroll all is a typical leftie political ploy.

china plateThu 15 Nov 12 (03:40pm)

never registered, never voted and never will because it’s..........compulsory

class WAR!Thu 15 Nov 12 (03:40pm)

OK. So your point is I would be happy at Andrew Bolts page. Possibly correct. I’m sure he is more likely than here, to provide some form of legitimate response to his readers and forum participants, instead of attemped putdowns to what are otherwise legitimate questions and comments.

Peter BrentThu 15 Nov 12 (04:11pm)

Dude, I provided a link to Ohio’s voter ID rules. They have voter ID.That’s a state that Obama won. Therefore, he didn’t lose all the states with voter ID. If you can’t engage with reality, then ... Bolt’s blog is probably for you.

David drives a 4WD, tooThu 15 Nov 12 (04:02pm)

Steve
Thu 15 Nov 12 (12:30pm)
“… only have themselves to blame”

I don’t know about that Steve. I was overseas many years ago and trudged across Mexico City to go and lodge an absentee vote in the Australian embassy. No easy task! What I discovered was that while I was away living overseas the Australian Electoral Commission did an audit and because I was not at home when they knocked on the door they took me off the electoral roll with no effort on their part to communicate their decision to me or the people renting my home. As it was politely explained to me by the AEC that would have required too much effort! The protocol was summary removal.

I was enrolled to vote when I left Australia, I voted, but because the AEC took me off the roll while I was away my vote was discarded.

Steve,… I don’t blame myself!

IanThu 15 Nov 12 (04:08pm)

What I write below is a bit critical of your answers to class WAR so I hope it won’t be discarded.

Dr Brent you are evading the issue with class WAR whose point is photo ID not other forms of ID To vote in Ohio you don’t have to have photo ID, other forms of ID will suffice, so the point class WAR is making is correct. From your response you seem to have missed his/her point. You quite often refer your posters to Andrew Bolt’s blog but why is unclear, at least to me. Have you and he got some sort of reciprocal agreement?

To Steve Dunera if you’re collecting data for statistical purposes and include suppositions and guesses based on personal experience in those data, this inclusion would completely invalidate the conclusions drawn

Peter BrentThu 15 Nov 12 (04:13pm)

I called this sentence “Apparently all the US States with mandatory voter ID requirements were lost by Obama” a fantasy. I provided a link to Ohio’s voter ID rules. They have voter ID.That’s a state that Obama won. Therefore, he didn’t lose all the states with voter ID.

He said I was wrong and started talking about *photo* ID. I have no idea whether what he says about photo ID is right. It sounds like one of those internet truthy things. They might be strong Republican states anyway.

And it’s an argument that works both ways. They were brought in by Republican state administration for largely partisan reasons, to minimise the Democrat vote. Maybe I’ll blog on this.

David drives a 4WD, tooThu 15 Nov 12 (04:15pm)

class WAR! Thu 15 Nov 12 (02:16pm)

Perhaps the Republicans are the only party who can afford fake ID’s.

NoeleneThu 15 Nov 12 (04:27pm)

The best change would have been voter ID.All else is window dressing.
In fact we should have an ID card full stop.
class war
I notice that Peter directs people to Bolt when he can’t answer a point.Lucky that Ohio wasn’t needed.
facts about the Ohio vote
Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes.

What this highlights is the lack of sophistication by Govts. In this day and age with them there computer thingamies, there’s no reason why DOB’s are not on the system and dates of citizenships for immigrants. There’s ZERO reason, except competency, why 99.9% of people can’t be on the electoral roll. The whole thing could be setup privately in about 12 months for about $5 million. Which means it could be setup by the Govt in about 15 years at a cost of around $500 million. Just so happens I’m an IT Consultant who would be quite willing to take the $500 million to do it OR if you want to be sensible, I’ll only charge $5 million… but you’ll have to put up with it working and being ready in 12 months, doubt that would be suitable for any Govt.

Peter BrentThu 15 Nov 12 (04:44pm)

The AEC has lots of data they get from govt agencies but until this year they could only use it to kick people off the roll, not put them on. If they discovered someone moved, they took them off the roll. Until now they could only put some one on the rol, or change their address, if the person filled out and signed a form. The point of this legislation is to allow them to do as you say.

JT of BrisThu 15 Nov 12 (04:52pm)

I’d just like to have a quick whinge about the AEC. When I last moved, I updated my drivers licence address and my address for a few other organisations as well. A couple of weeks later I recieved at my new address an unsolicited letter and a form from the AEC telling me that they knew I had moved and would I please fill out the form to update my new address with them. I wanted to write back and say clearly you already know where I am living so why not just update my details without bothering me!

What this highlights is the lack of sophistication by Govts. In this day and age with them there computer thingamies, there’s no reason why DOB’s are not on the system and dates of citizenships for immigrants. There’s ZERO reason, except competency, why 99.9% of people can’t be on the electoral roll. The whole thing could be setup privately in about 12 months for about $5 million. Which means it could be setup by the Govt in about 15 years at a cost of around $500 million. Just so happens I’m an IT Consultant who would be quite willing to take the $500 million to do it OR if you want to be sensible, I’ll only charge $5 million… but you’ll have to put up with it working and being ready in 12 months, doubt that would be suitable for any Govt.

class WAR!Thu 15 Nov 12 (05:06pm)

What part of “photo ID” that I directly pointed to, no less than 4 times in 2 posts, in relation to which way states fell do you fail to understand? A gas bill is not “photo ID”. Even in Ohio.

Peter BrentThu 15 Nov 12 (05:14pm)

This started as a reply by me to someone else, to which you responded. See my response to Ian, above.

class WAR!Thu 15 Nov 12 (05:29pm)

One thing I did notice on the link you sent me from Bolts site, is that he gives credit to forum participants for tips and hints. You say “ I have no idea whether what he says about photo ID is right. It sounds like one of those internet truthy things.” and that “Maybe I’ll blog on this.”

Here is a link with the requirements by state on ID for voting. And yes it is “an internety thing”. Just like the Mumble blog I guess....http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

If you do end up blogging on it and linking to it, I look forward to seeing “Thanks to reader ‘class WAR!’”, much like Bolt does when he gets info from his readers.

However more likely I will get a rant and a link to Pickering’s Blog next.

PedantThu 15 Nov 12 (05:45pm)

Entitlement to vote comes (for most people) from being an Australian citizen, and from being over 18. The electoral roll is just a tool used to facilitate polling day. If the new mechanism produces a more comprehensive and accurate roll, it should be applauded. Some of your earlier posters seem to think that enrolment should be a supplementary test of one’s fitness to vote, and that the bar should be set good and high. In holding that attitude, they would find themselves in good company with the sheriffs (and their dogs) who so controlled the voter registration process in the Deep South of the USA before the passage of the Voting Rights Act in the mid 60s.

Post A Comment

We welcome your comments. All comments should be concise,
focus specifically on the topic for discussion and are submitted
for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited.
Comments that are derogatory toward the blogger or at other comments,
or those which may potentially incite racial hatred or violence,
are defamatory or in contempt of court, will not be published.
Please provide a screen name and
suburb/location - these will be published
.
We also require a working email address - not for publication,
but for verification.

* Required fields

Screen Name:* Required

Location:

Email Address:* Required

Your Comments:* Required

Email To A Friend

* Required fields

Subject:* Required

Recipient's Email:* Required

Your Name:* Required

Your Email:* Required

Your Email:* Required

Information provided on this page will not be used for any other purpose
than to notify the recipient of the article you have chosen.

Share This Article

From here you can use the Social Web links to save 'Proportion of unenrolled young people?' to a social
bookmarking site.

Peter Brent

Peter Brent started Mumble in 2001; the old site can be found at http://mumble.com.au. He mainly goes on about the numbers in electoral behaviour and voters' motivations that drive them. In 2009 he finished a PhD in political science which dealt with electoral administration, a topic he also sometimes goes on about. You can follow him on Twitter at @mumbletwits.